MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1775606769 · doi:10.1080/02673843.2015.1061568

Supporting young carers: a qualitative review of young carer services in Canada

2015· review· en· W1775606769 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vivian Stamatopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Adolescence and Youth · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Qualitative researchMental healthWork (physics)NursingService providerSocial WelfareService (business)Public relationsPsychologyMedicineBusinessPsychiatrySociologyPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, a growing number of young people (i.e., young carers) provide an increasing level of unpaid care to family member(s) with a chronic illness, disability, mental health or substance use issue and/or problems related to old age. Despite young carers occupying a central role in public policy and social service programming in other countries, very little attention has been paid to these youth in Canada, with no dedicated policies acknowledging their care-work and only a handful of non-profit organisations struggling to support their needs. This article provides the first known qualitative review of existing young carer programmes in Canada, using interview data with staff at each operational site to: (1) review the range of services offered to young carers and, (2) document barriers to improving their scope and reach. Findings show that available support services are in a preliminary assistance–mitigation phase, with various constraints related to funding and reach that impede their movement to a model of prevention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Adolescence and YouthSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207